A question set for assessing any proposed substitution of a specified wetpour material. The principle throughout: equivalence is a performance claim, demonstrated with evidence by whoever proposes the alternative — a shared category name ("EPDM", "TPV", "SBR") is not, of itself, evidence of anything. Put these questions to the proposer; the right-hand column is what a satisfactory submission contains.
1 · Identity & traceability
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | Who manufactures the proposed material, and where? | Named manufacturer and production site — not a trading name |
| ☐ | Is the formulation controlled and traceable? | Statement of formulation control; batch traceability to the factory |
| ☐ | Is the offered material the same formulation as the tested material? | Written confirmation; certificates naming the exact product offered |
2 · Composition
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | What is the polymer content and type? | Declared polymer content; comparison with the specified product |
| ☐ | What fillers and oils are used, and in what proportion? | Composition declaration — "mostly filler" materials age accordingly |
| ☐ | How is the colour formed — through the granule, or coated on? | Description of pigmentation; behaviour of worn surfaces |
3 · Ageing, UV & heat
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | What accelerated-weathering results exist for this product? | e.g. EN 14836 with greyscale score, for the offered product and colour family |
| ☐ | How does the material behave at realistic surface temperatures? | Heat-behaviour data (e.g. compression set at elevated temperature) on a comparable basis |
| ☐ | Does it retain elasticity in service, or progressively harden? | Ageing data plus real-world corroboration — hardening never reverses |
4 · System compatibility
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | Is it compatible with the specified binder, at the specified loading? | Compatibility confirmation; composite results with that binder |
| ☐ | What is the granule geometry, and what binder demand does it create? | Grading/geometry data — different geometry changes strength, texture and cost |
| ☐ | What happens to composite strength as binder loading increases? | Composite data at more than one loading — a material the binder can't grip plateaus early |
5 · Composite performance
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | What does the finished bound system achieve in tensile terms? | EN 12230 composite results, binder type and ratio stated |
| ☐ | Does the proposed system meet impact requirements on this build-up? | EN 1177 results for the actual thickness and construction proposed |
| ☐ | Are all quoted figures measured on the composite — not granule or sheet? | Test reports stating specimen form and conditions |
6 · Consistency & history
| ✓ | Ask the proposer… | Evidence to require |
|---|
| ☐ | What production controls ensure batch-to-batch consistency? | Quality system details (e.g. ISO 9001); consistency records |
| ☐ | What comparable aged installations exist? | Named, dated sites in comparable climate and use — ideally 5+ years old |
| ☐ | Can they be inspected? | Current photographs and/or a site visit — real history is easy to show |
Reading the submission
Score nothing; look at the shape of the answers. A genuine equivalent answers quickly and specifically across all six sections, because the evidence already exists. A label-only substitute typically produces a price, a category name, and data borrowed from the granule, the sheet, or another product entirely. Where sections 3–5 are thin, the material — whatever its initials — has not demonstrated equivalence, and the specification should say exactly that.
Published by Rosehill Sports & Play, a division of Rosehill Group. Every Rosehill TPV® granule is manufactured at Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire.
